SimCity Update: Straight Answers from Lucy

Kabloosh · March 16, 2013

I personally don't see a problem with a developer coming up with an idea they like and running with it. That is how all great games come into existence in the first place. They don't exactly make a game thinking "oh, this is what the fanbase wants!" because there generally is no fanbase. No, in the early days people just came up with stuff. The problem I see is though is you are taking an existing idea and trying to redesign it instead of expanding on what makes this game unique compared to the ones made in the past. Its a fine line to cross. I don't think EA hires developers to design games they want to make rather what will make them the most money.

macvirt · March 16, 2013

I personally don't see a problem with a developer coming up with an idea they like and running with it. That is how all great games come into existence in the first place. They don't exactly make a game thinking "oh, this is what the fanbase wants!" because there generally is no fanbase. No, in the early days people just came up with stuff. The problem I see is though is you are taking an existing idea and trying to redesign it instead of expanding on what makes this game unique compared to the ones made in the past. Its a fine line to cross. I don't think EA hires developers to design games they want to make rather what will make them the most money.

Wrong. Great visions on ventures always start with a general approach of "guys this is an awesome idea, what do we know of what people out there might find awesome about it and how do we match that". The greatest games have always began as projects on the questions of "what do people want and what do people need". It is after that where other parts of the challenge start, for example how to package that, how to sell that, how to seperate groups from the generic volume markets so that they become a customer and a fanbase.

Or rather, that is how it started out in our industry. Today it is different. For example, it is no longer "done" to approach matters to seperate groups from generic volumes, it is now required to use existing seperate groups in order to reach and utilise generic volumes. The difference may seem subtle at first, but is extremely significant and has deep consequences for customers and customer groups.

EA is a prime example, because in many ways they create the trends that are shaping this industry. And yes, EA specifically collects resources to match their vision, their targets, their money. Developers, just like the computers they use, just like the customers expected to buy quietly and all resources. EA tunes all resources to maximise its strategies and gains.

This is an industry. Nothing more, nothing less. It really is no surprise that EA managed to beat one of the most corrupt banks with the most desdain for its customers with its customer support ratings. It is a non factor for how such enterprises function. It is not about the customer, not about the developer, it is not about the resources. It is about maximising gain (which includes gaining control over trends in how the industry itself develops).

azxcvbnm321 · March 16, 2013

Nice post. If I may add to it, I believe the most important aspect isn't the developer's vision vs. the core player's vision, it's execution and how well ideas get translated into actual gameplay. Most ideas from either side aren't terrible, but the game could wind up being terrible if the ideas aren't implemented well.

I wouldn't have minded Lucy's vision for SimCity2013 had the ideas been executed properly into something that works well. She talks about multiplayer and a global simulation of regions, but right now, you can't depend on trades between cities because they are frequently lost or delayed to the point where by they time you get the resources, your city is in shambles. Plus the entire dynamic of R,C, and I has been dumbed down to the point where C and I aren't needed at all and don't play off of each other like they did in SimCity4. The ideas were executed poorly and therefore the game failed.

But I do agree that sometimes developers get married to their grand ideas too much, even when it becomes clear that the ideas cannot be executed in a way that makes for smooth gameplay. At some point, EA should have realized that the mechanics of the game could not be improved to the point where the ideas worked. Perhaps it was too late. Whatever the reason, poor execution = bad game.

macvirt · March 16, 2013

Nice post. If I may add to it, I believe the most important aspect isn't the developer's vision vs. the core player's vision, it's execution and how well ideas get translated into actual gameplay. Most ideas from either side aren't terrible, but the game could wind up being terrible if the ideas aren't implemented well.

I wouldn't have minded Lucy's vision for SimCity2013 had the ideas been executed properly into something that works well. She talks about multiplayer and a global simulation of regions, but right now, you can't depend on trades between cities because they are frequently lost or delayed to the point where by they time you get the resources, your city is in shambles. Plus the entire dynamic of R,C, and I has been dumbed down to the point where C and I aren't needed at all and don't play off of each other like they did in SimCity4. The ideas were executed poorly and therefore the game failed.

But I do agree that sometimes developers get married to their grand ideas too much, even when it becomes clear that the ideas cannot be executed in a way that makes for smooth gameplay. At some point, EA should have realized that the mechanics of the game could not be improved to the point where the ideas worked. Perhaps it was too late. Whatever the reason, poor execution = bad game.

Well, to be blunt, it does not matter whether a game is released in a crippled state - regardless of whether that is because of deadlines imposed on developers or strategic directives determining the constraints in which developers can work or because of the title specs being divided over release sets and microtransaction sets after release, or anything else really.

The mentality is such that these things do not matter, because the mentality expects the customer to buy anyway. All resources are tailored to ensure that the customer buys regardless of whatever the state of a project may be. Sometimes studios or publishers are not that good in utilising the available instrumentation, and titles flop. Most of the time though, especially the more a publisher works as an investment firm, the available instrumentation works fine and even protests of those used for generating messaging (but who are not the target user types) serve the end goals of reaching easier and cheaper volume markets.

I get the idea often that many customers do not realise the constraints game developers work in. Most of the time these people have no idea of the strategic picture, they work within a process of discovery and design embedded in strategic directives. Of which they most of they time see little of, because the management levels are very careful to maintain the balance of the relation "as is" between publishers / investors and the venture itself.

Every human being is vulnerable to prioritising their own individual desires or vision over that of others. Game developers are just as vulnerable to that as customers in their own expectations. That is why it is always important for developers to maintain a relation with marketing so that marketing serves the development in order to ensure that the vision matches potential and serves sales. Companies like EA just make the choice to treat and use both the development and the customer levels as resources, because only their vision matters to them. They choose to use expectation matters independantly of the differences between those patterns and their own strategic goals. This is the cornerstone of why this mentality so often results in either the appearance or the reality of desdain for the customer and the developer alike. It is why companies like EA provide career paths with financial and other incentives in a rat race for the management level, why they prioritise marketing segments, over those who do the actual work and over those why actually buy the results of labour.

Managers and marketing are expected to buy in to a system of dependancies in order to serve individual careers, it is a system taken from financial and retail sectors of industry. Developers, designers, artists, those who do the actual production labour are expected and required to do so quietly, corporate culture management is tailored to create circumstances for exactly that and it is strengthened by the strong emphasis on providing targeting within constraints of strategic directives. Customers are equally expected and required to buy quietly. Any messaging surrounding it all, regardless of positive or negative, is expected to serve the strategic orientation even if that means one has to put in to practice concepts like management of Big Lie principles (which some may be surprised of, but which is actual part of management and organisational sciences).

It does not matter if a release is poor, as long as the instrumentation remains in place to guide messaging and control the long term outcome of the exposure. Something which especially today in the era of services management and microtransaction models is even more true, because it pays even more to deliver less.

kyraeus · March 16, 2013

What I find kind of interesting, mac, is one of the points you make is about EA using the corporate mindset on 'maximizing gain'. I don't understand how garnering such negative publicity and bad opinions/reviews/etc. and obvious failure to consider their target consumer base maximizes gain on ANYthing, be it profits, acclaim, market share, or anything else. It strikes me as though allowing incomplete titles, or ones of this nature that actively demote EA's brand appearance are an extremely bad long-term strategy.

I wholeheartedly agree though, that the corporate and publishing interests in this case are FAR more involved in the development of this, and probably in fact MOST of EA's titles than is healthy either for the consumer OR the game as a functioning entity, and they've done this with a lot of their titles over the years. If this was JUST a case of the developers' wishes vs. the consumers, I don't think it would be so bad. You see smaller devs or actual community-encouraged software devs who actually take a hand in this and have better finger on the pulse of what their target audience wants. But from day one, it seems like what Lucy and others in that middle management role between dev and publisher (situationally speaking, of course), have to say to the community as a whole has been 'scripted'. I know that's probably true of most communication, but they're fairly obviously intentionally NOT saying anything about certain things, and hyping other aspects, trying to avoid the issues. Other MMO's in particular made this mistake in recent years. I'm not expecting FULL exposure, that would be media suicide. But at least don't 'ignore' valid, major issues the community is slamming you with, and come up with a valid response.

There seems to be a dichotomy currently between a lot of conversations I've seen between fans where a large portion are trying to state 'This isn't what we wanted!', a small portion saying 'Hey, give them time to fix it, it's not really that bad!', and others who are more or less made completely illiterate by rage over decisions made to this effect.

Partly I can't understand why even the corporate aspect at this point isn't saying 'Hey, guys? We have a chance to make serious points and advertising/promotion by simply giving the fans what they want.' According to the info I've seen so far, it seems like simply resolving the offline play feature thing is a relatively simple fix at this point, or as has been done by the pirate/modding community before, could (never happen, I know), release a 'lan server' component like in the old days of multiplayer langaming to handle all the 'overhead' they claim is done by their servers to appease those people. That alone would resolve most of the hatred. Then simply mask that whole bit in PR stating 'We heard what the fans wanted and opted to give it to them'. Bingo. Win-win, right? They get increased revenue. The players get what they want. EA comes off less of a douche than they currently are.

Add to that, I've seen a lot of argument where everyone acts like single player offline has to necessarily destroy the online component of the game. Why? It's as simple as programming the interface with an extra checkbox for offline play, once you have the working coding for it. Hell, LEAVE your 'vision' in place, Lucy, even as the standard play mode, just give us the option to play OUR 'vision' of the game when we don't have the access to enable us to play what you think it should be. Same client, same general statistics, even if it has to not be leaderboard enabled, region enabled, etc, etc, etc...

Simplest solution: allow a single region to run in offline mode, saved per the current temporary save feature for disconnects (seen on other parts of this forum), only upgraded properly to allow normal offline saving of that region for the mode of play, or as described above, for a LAN server app based thing you could run behind the scenes. Limit functionality normally allowed for full online play mode. Have the SC application store saved storefront information and advertising to be viewed offline by customers, so you don't lose any advertisement capability (since we all know that's where they want to go with this). You don't HAVE to give up every single little thing the consumers want to come to a compromise, and frankly, they deserve that consideration.

EA's kind of lost sight of that long term exposure outcome you mention mac, which is some of the same experience that's happened since the 80s gaming market crash. Simply put, 'release enough crappy games, with ridiculous requirements or models, after promising quality content, and soon you'll find yourself WITHOUT that 'resource'.

No sarcasm directed at you there mac, I think you're pretty much spot on as far as the corporate mindset of the industry. The problem I see seems to be the people at the top not making command decisions that would resolve this issue in compromise to make everyone happy.

cirugo · March 16, 2013

What I find kind of interesting, mac, is one of the points you make is about EA using the corporate mindset on 'maximizing gain'. I don't understand how garnering such negative publicity and bad opinions/reviews/etc. and obvious failure to consider their target consumer base maximizes gain on ANYthing, be it profits, acclaim, market share, or anything else. It strikes me as though allowing incomplete titles, or ones of this nature that actively demote EA's brand appearance are an extremely bad long-term strategy.

I wholeheartedly agree though, that the corporate and publishing interests in this case are FAR more involved in the development of this, and probably in fact MOST of EA's titles than is healthy either for the consumer OR the game as a functioning entity, and they've done this with a lot of their titles over the years. If this was JUST a case of the developers' wishes vs. the consumers, I don't think it would be so bad. You see smaller devs or actual community-encouraged software devs who actually take a hand in this and have better finger on the pulse of what their target audience wants. But from day one, it seems like what Lucy and others in that middle management role between dev and publisher (situationally speaking, of course), have to say to the community as a whole has been 'scripted'. I know that's probably true of most communication, but they're fairly obviously intentionally NOT saying anything about certain things, and hyping other aspects, trying to avoid the issues. Other MMO's in particular made this mistake in recent years. I'm not expecting FULL exposure, that would be media suicide. But at least don't 'ignore' valid, major issues the community is slamming you with, and come up with a valid response.

There seems to be a dichotomy currently between a lot of conversations I've seen between fans where a large portion are trying to state 'This isn't what we wanted!', a small portion saying 'Hey, give them time to fix it, it's not really that bad!', and others who are more or less made completely illiterate by rage over decisions made to this effect.

Partly I can't understand why even the corporate aspect at this point isn't saying 'Hey, guys? We have a chance to make serious points and advertising/promotion by simply giving the fans what they want.' According to the info I've seen so far, it seems like simply resolving the offline play feature thing is a relatively simple fix at this point, or as has been done by the pirate/modding community before, could (never happen, I know), release a 'lan server' component like in the old days of multiplayer langaming to handle all the 'overhead' they claim is done by their servers to appease those people. That alone would resolve most of the hatred. Then simply mask that whole bit in PR stating 'We heard what the fans wanted and opted to give it to them'. Bingo. Win-win, right? They get increased revenue. The players get what they want. EA comes off less of a douche than they currently are.

Add to that, I've seen a lot of argument where everyone acts like single player offline has to necessarily destroy the online component of the game. Why? It's as simple as programming the interface with an extra checkbox for offline play, once you have the working coding for it. Hell, LEAVE your 'vision' in place, Lucy, even as the standard play mode, just give us the option to play OUR 'vision' of the game when we don't have the access to enable us to play what you think it should be. Same client, same general statistics, even if it has to not be leaderboard enabled, region enabled, etc, etc, etc...

Simplest solution: allow a single region to run in offline mode, saved per the current temporary save feature for disconnects (seen on other parts of this forum), only upgraded properly to allow normal offline saving of that region for the mode of play, or as described above, for a LAN server app based thing you could run behind the scenes. Limit functionality normally allowed for full online play mode. Have the SC application store saved storefront information and advertising to be viewed offline by customers, so you don't lose any advertisement capability (since we all know that's where they want to go with this). You don't HAVE to give up every single little thing the consumers want to come to a compromise, and frankly, they deserve that consideration.

EA's kind of lost sight of that long term exposure outcome you mention mac, which is some of the same experience that's happened since the 80s gaming market crash. Simply put, 'release enough crappy games, with ridiculous requirements or models, after promising quality content, and soon you'll find yourself WITHOUT that 'resource'.

No sarcasm directed at you there mac, I think you're pretty much spot on as far as the corporate mindset of the industry. The problem I see seems to be the people at the top not making command decisions that would resolve this issue in compromise to make everyone happy.

Why? because to give in would be to risk their long-term business strategy of always-online and connectedness. There's a number of reasons that I can think of as to why they'd be willing to sacrifice this particular title to stay with that strategy (data-mining revenue, DLC, forced obsolescence, anti-piracy measures). The only thing that will stop it is if people just refuse to buy it outright. That's why I've been rooting for the game to fail since they announced this and then dug in on it a year ago and why I will continue to promote all of the negativity about it whenever and wherever I can.

Districtopia · March 16, 2013

Hope I don't expose myself as too ignorant by asking this but doesn't the fact that a lot of the game is run through the cloud make it easier for PCs to run? I remember when SC4 came out I could barely run it on my brand new Vaio. SC4 also had problems running on the new laptop I bought in 2009. It was so big my computer would often overheat when running it. I'm not saying I am pro-DRM/always online but if it's reducing the load on our computers at least we have that.

/looking on the bright side

Evil_One · March 16, 2013

Hope I don't expose myself as too ignorant by asking this but doesn't the fact that a lot of the game is run through the cloud make it easier for PCs to run? I remember when SC4 came out I could barely run it on my brand new Vaio. SC4 also had problems running on the new laptop I bought in 2009. It was so big my computer would often overheat when running it. I'm not saying I am pro-DRM/always online but if it's reducing the load on our computers at least we have that.

/looking on the bright side

Not really, most of the game is still being run on individual users PCs, the only thing the server handles is the regional calculations which given the way the game works aren't even a quarter of the calculations needed to run one single city... A dedicated server on a home PC could handle this, it could also easily be made offline as well, but Maxis didn't want to.

NCGAIO · March 16, 2013

What seems not be being quoted very explicitly is that all this only works based on misinformation or concealment of characteristics of a product.

Nobody in the real world would spend money on something that was not the promised if informed earlier, much less complain after that just rented what thought to be buying.

What is missing is the legal obligation of Transparency in consumer relations thus preventing these schemes "gold mine" continue proliferating without that consumers are entitled to a refund already the product was not delivered as promised.

Of all the ill-fated pronouncements of Lucy think the worst part and where quotes have kept fans arrested over twenty years. Looks like they found a new formula to keep them imprisoned anyway!

But do not worry more with repayments because already in the network the game that Maxis will offer as toast in March ... Prepare yourself because you will receive

"Sim City "Roller Coaster Tycoon"

Districtopia · March 16, 2013

Hope I don't expose myself as too ignorant by asking this but doesn't the fact that a lot of the game is run through the cloud make it easier for PCs to run? I remember when SC4 came out I could barely run it on my brand new Vaio. SC4 also had problems running on the new laptop I bought in 2009. It was so big my computer would often overheat when running it. I'm not saying I am pro-DRM/always online but if it's reducing the load on our computers at least we have that.

/looking on the bright side

Not really, most of the game is still being run on individual users PCs, the only thing the server handles is the regional calculations which given the way the game works aren't even a quarter of the calculations needed to run one single city... A dedicated server on a home PC could handle this, it could also easily be made offline as well, but Maxis didn't want to.

Ahh, Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Wasn't quite sure how that worked...

azxcvbnm321 · March 16, 2013

Macvirt, I appreciate your response but I have to disagree. It does matter, on a sales basis, if a game comes out unfinished or in bad shape as SimCity2013 did. Most games get the majority of their sales post-release, I can't say for certain but I'm thinking that even well hyped games will sell more games post-release rather than pre-release. I almost bought SimCty2013 pre-release but didn't see much reason to and wanted to find out what the gameplay was actually like from the community. Releasing a bad game will discourage potential customers from buying and reduce revenues. Therefore it DOES matter how broken the game is upon release.

Hardly any games are released without flaws or major bugs, I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that there are gradients of "unfiinshedness" and the more broken a game is, the less likely someone will buy it regardless of the advertising resources of a company. One thing that has to be made clear is that advertising can draw attention to the product and maybe get people to try the product. But it cannot make a bad product into a good one. Once enough people have tried the product, word will get out and no amount of advertising will be able to reverse the tide. Marketing can only go so far.

Now the company can make a strategic decision to release a bad game to recoup costs. EA could have decided that the game could not be fixed in a timely manner and would remain a bad game regardless, outside of a total remake. In that case, they could have decided just to release and at least get some money back from sales, knowing that it's a lost cause. I'm beginning to favor this view. They must have spent a substantial amount of time and resources on Glassbox, the new engine of SimCity2013 that does not work well for this type of game. Perhaps it was too ambitious, with more processing power, maybe each agent could be traced, tracked, and have individual pathfinding. Whatever the vision, Glassbox as it stands is a total failure. Starting from scratch might have cost EA too much money so they decided to release SimCity2013 with their failed engine and patch the game as best as possible.

Releasing multiple expansions and paid in-game content is a valid strategy that I also believe in. Unfortunately, people today are not aware of the vast amount of time and resources needed to make a modern game and refuse to pay the $100+ that a game should cost in order for the company to remain profitable. But due to behavioral reasons, people will pay $100+ if the costs are broken up into smaller pieces. You see, companies ARE listening to the customer base and in the language of economics, money speaks loudest. However the strategy of multiple expansions and so forth do not necessarily lead companies to release broken or bad games. I have to point to Skyrim as a successful release that will use expansions to recoup costs and make the game profitable. From all accounts, it's a very good game.

Endureth · March 17, 2013

Companies can release good content without gouging customers. StarCraft II for example. Great game, free online service, fully worked out expansions. The game keeps selling because it's GOOD. You don't have to trick customers to make money, if you just give them an honest product, like, I dunno, SimCity 4, the money keeps coming in.

macvirt · March 17, 2013

What I find kind of interesting, mac, is one of the points you make is about EA using the corporate mindset on 'maximizing gain'. I don't understand how garnering such negative publicity and bad opinions/reviews/etc. and obvious failure to consider their target consumer base maximizes gain on ANYthing, be it profits, acclaim, market share, or anything else. It strikes me as though allowing incomplete titles, or ones of this nature that actively demote EA's brand appearance are an extremely bad long-term strategy.

I wholeheartedly agree though, that the corporate and publishing interests in this case are FAR more involved in the development of this, and probably in fact MOST of EA's titles than is healthy either for the consumer OR the game as a functioning entity, and they've done this with a lot of their titles over the years. If this was JUST a case of the developers' wishes vs. the consumers, I don't think it would be so bad. You see smaller devs or actual community-encouraged software devs who actually take a hand in this and have better finger on the pulse of what their target audience wants. But from day one, it seems like what Lucy and others in that middle management role between dev and publisher (situationally speaking, of course), have to say to the community as a whole has been 'scripted'. I know that's probably true of most communication, but they're fairly obviously intentionally NOT saying anything about certain things, and hyping other aspects, trying to avoid the issues. Other MMO's in particular made this mistake in recent years. I'm not expecting FULL exposure, that would be media suicide. But at least don't 'ignore' valid, major issues the community is slamming you with, and come up with a valid response.

There seems to be a dichotomy currently between a lot of conversations I've seen between fans where a large portion are trying to state 'This isn't what we wanted!', a small portion saying 'Hey, give them time to fix it, it's not really that bad!', and others who are more or less made completely illiterate by rage over decisions made to this effect.

Partly I can't understand why even the corporate aspect at this point isn't saying 'Hey, guys? We have a chance to make serious points and advertising/promotion by simply giving the fans what they want.' According to the info I've seen so far, it seems like simply resolving the offline play feature thing is a relatively simple fix at this point, or as has been done by the pirate/modding community before, could (never happen, I know), release a 'lan server' component like in the old days of multiplayer langaming to handle all the 'overhead' they claim is done by their servers to appease those people. That alone would resolve most of the hatred. Then simply mask that whole bit in PR stating 'We heard what the fans wanted and opted to give it to them'. Bingo. Win-win, right? They get increased revenue. The players get what they want. EA comes off less of a douche than they currently are.

Add to that, I've seen a lot of argument where everyone acts like single player offline has to necessarily destroy the online component of the game. Why? It's as simple as programming the interface with an extra checkbox for offline play, once you have the working coding for it. Hell, LEAVE your 'vision' in place, Lucy, even as the standard play mode, just give us the option to play OUR 'vision' of the game when we don't have the access to enable us to play what you think it should be. Same client, same general statistics, even if it has to not be leaderboard enabled, region enabled, etc, etc, etc...

Simplest solution: allow a single region to run in offline mode, saved per the current temporary save feature for disconnects (seen on other parts of this forum), only upgraded properly to allow normal offline saving of that region for the mode of play, or as described above, for a LAN server app based thing you could run behind the scenes. Limit functionality normally allowed for full online play mode. Have the SC application store saved storefront information and advertising to be viewed offline by customers, so you don't lose any advertisement capability (since we all know that's where they want to go with this). You don't HAVE to give up every single little thing the consumers want to come to a compromise, and frankly, they deserve that consideration.

EA's kind of lost sight of that long term exposure outcome you mention mac, which is some of the same experience that's happened since the 80s gaming market crash. Simply put, 'release enough crappy games, with ridiculous requirements or models, after promising quality content, and soon you'll find yourself WITHOUT that 'resource'.

No sarcasm directed at you there mac, I think you're pretty much spot on as far as the corporate mindset of the industry. The problem I see seems to be the people at the top not making command decisions that would resolve this issue in compromise to make everyone happy.

I can be really simple about the issue. EA does not care about anyone but the executive level. It is a textbook example of how organisations can derail themselves in to servitude of the few (who incidentally tend to score very high on the pyschopathy test scales, honestly, well worth doing a little research on) who really only make a living by means of juggling other people's money in a race of paying off one investment with the next and walking away with most of any differences themselves beyond the meager percentages on investor returns.

I am not going in to my own contacts and communications with these people. They are incredibly bright, very savvy, but most fail to meet the most basic standards of healthy human behaviour. Camouflage of behaviour is part of survival instrumentation, it is a result of having grown up and grown in to a mindset they cannot escape, and will always avoid to move away from. I've worked in this industry for roughly 30 odd years, as well as in other industries, and while there are always excesses everywhere, EA is a topic in its own right.

It is a dependancy chain. Our society is stuck in it, and the mindset that feeds the best by putting anything that can possible be used into use as a resource without regard for what or who it is that is the mindset that reigns supreme. It is consumerism that enables it. Regardless of whether we look at the control these mindsets have over economic elements of society, politics or anything really. We as people enable it because we allow the feeding chain to be enabled without buffers against excessive behaviour.

Sometimes we do so in this wierd fairy land of free market ideology (which is a myth, there is no such thing as a magic self fixing market, we're talking about human beings here). Sometimes we call it the american dream (which has become nothing more than propaganda for resisting necessary adaptations to changing times in order to maintain the status quo of dependancy chains). Sometimes we just want to believe, we want to be and feel connected, we want to puzzle and challenge and make or be part of something greater than ourselves. EA in these regards has mastered very well the necessary instrumentations to abuse these aspects of human behaviour. Willingly, consciously, deliberately.

It's not a system that enables dependable growth. Far from. It is why banks require bailouts, why investment firms require zero cost credit, it is why entertainment industries move away from risk management into laws of minimalities. Etcetera.

And that while it is actually increasingly possible to create growth and create wealth by not falling prey to the short cycle syndromes of the mindset. It is only because it is easiest, and because it is even easier to get away with it that it continues to dominate. As I said, our current forms of consumerism are what enables it. And if history is right (and sofar in our human history it has always been right) it only leads to new and exciting forms of slavery. With a touch of bread & circusses.

Apologies, it sometimes irks me to see an amazing industry where an enormous potential of talent and vision comes together, a potential extremely well poised to create growth and wealth, is just wasted because really just a handful of people maintain and enforce a guided development of the industry for only very specific purposes. Worse of all, it is increasingly bleeding out the prospects of that industry for the long term. Something which particularly we Americans with our comparatively expensive labour costs should be really concerned about as the forces of globalisation require us to adapt and expand according to challenges. By the way, globalisation is a bit of a popular word today, but it has been with us ever since we crawled out of the caves or clubbed a female on the head in order to drag her back to the cave. It is demographics and resource utilisation on a natural level. As the species grew, globalisation became a force. Pygmees in Indonesia went extinct because of it. Neanderthals as well. Today we only look at specific economic aspects of it, but we still refuse to recognise that we actively refuse to adapt to changing circumstances and challenges.

The short version is simple. Those parts of our industry which are managed as an investment format for venture and investor capital are structurally contaminated by a mindset which is counterproductive to the continuity of the industry. Their only recourse for continuity is achieving full and complete control over the industry as a whole and over all required resources as a whole. The customer has no meaning, and to quote a senior EA executive from an interesting post briefing discussion last year "the customer can go f*ck himself, stupid f*cks will buy anything anyway cause we decide for 'em". I sometimes wish I had recorded that discussion, but at the end of the day it is probably best that I didn't. Call me crazy, but I know too many good men and women who would find themselves without even the prospects of a career if EA blew up in the predictable ways following such a scandal.

azxcvbnm321 · March 18, 2013

If this mindset is indeed the case, then the company will go bankrupt and be tossed into the dustbin of history. EA has been taking loses, I haven't looked at the recent financials, but last I heard they were losing money and the stock price is down substantially within the last few months. If there is demand, then other companies will step in and provide what EA cannot, if they can do so for a cost that produces profit.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do, it's obvious that various negative experiences have tainted your outlook.

Our society is stuck in it, and the mindset that feeds the best by putting anything that can possible be used into use as a resource without regard for what or who it is that is the mindset that reigns supreme. It is consumerism that enables it. Regardless of whether we look at the control these mindsets have over economic elements of society, politics or anything really. We as people enable it because we allow the feeding chain to be enabled without buffers against excessive behaviour.

And who or what can or should decide what is excessive if it's not society through the marketplace? How should businesses treat resources? If you're talking about employees and customers, good companies treat their employees and customers well, at least the valuable employees. Otherwise they will leave the company and hurt them. True, the larger the company, the more likely the organization will be plagued by various self-destructive behavior due to structural reasons (bureaucracy is created and bureaucracy acts to save/empower itself at the expense of the overall well-being of the organization) but employees leave companies all the time and a great number start their own firms. Companies go out of business all the time as they should, unless government should intervene to "save" a company that has treated its customers and employees in a way that has led society to reject it through lack of profitability.

Globalization is a natural and unstoppable force. There's also no greater poverty reducer. The lives of BILLIONS have been improved thanks to globalization and the entrance into the capitalist marketplace by those formerly shut off from it. I'm sorry if you're one of the many in the United States who have been hurt by globalization, but you are relatively wealthy compared to the average human alive today. Globalization is a force that equalizes wages across countries. The rich (YOU) have suffered while the poor (the guy taking your job in India, China, etc.) have benefited. Overall, humanity as a whole is richer and better off, though the richer countries have not gained as much as the poorer emerging markets.

I could go on, but I think you should re-examine your mindset and explore the arguments of the other side as I have done. Examine the best arguments made and the reasoning behind them, then you will be in position to make an informed judgment of the economic structures of humanity.

elektrichead22 · March 18, 2013

lets not forget the topic of this post str8 answers from Lucy... We can all agree that her story has changed after we disproved her every step of the way... to me the past week watching the events unfold has been as fun as watching the Divinci Code... you know someone is lying but when they are exposed and you can see them lying more it makes it more entertaining.... Granted her slow leak of obvious information is probably leading to higher conspiracy theroies involving ea controlling the masses... there is merit because she would have to lie for a reason right?

lets not forget the topic of this post str8 answers from Lucy... We can all agree that her story has changed after we disproved her every step of the way... to me the past week watching the events unfold has been as fun as watching the Divinci Code... you know someone is lying but when they are exposed and you can see them lying more it makes it more entertaining.... Granted her slow leak of obvious information is probably leading to higher conspiracy theroies involving ea controlling the masses... there is merit because she would have to lie for a reason right?

st patricks day and beer makes this unreadable but if you can read drunk talk kudos!

Kabloosh · March 18, 2013

I personally don't see a problem with a developer coming up with an idea they like and running with it. That is how all great games come into existence in the first place. They don't exactly make a game thinking "oh, this is what the fanbase wants!" because there generally is no fanbase. No, in the early days people just came up with stuff. The problem I see is though is you are taking an existing idea and trying to redesign it instead of expanding on what makes this game unique compared to the ones made in the past. Its a fine line to cross. I don't think EA hires developers to design games they want to make rather what will make them the most money.

Wrong. Great visions on ventures always start with a general approach of "guys this is an awesome idea, what do we know of what people out there might find awesome about it and how do we match that". The greatest games have always began as projects on the questions of "what do people want and what do people need". It is after that where other parts of the challenge start, for example how to package that, how to sell that, how to seperate groups from the generic volume markets so that they become a customer and a fanbase.

Or rather, that is how it started out in our industry. Today it is different. For example, it is no longer "done" to approach matters to seperate groups from generic volumes, it is now required to use existing seperate groups in order to reach and utilise generic volumes. The difference may seem subtle at first, but is extremely significant and has deep consequences for customers and customer groups.

EA is a prime example, because in many ways they create the trends that are shaping this industry. And yes, EA specifically collects resources to match their vision, their targets, their money. Developers, just like the computers they use, just like the customers expected to buy quietly and all resources. EA tunes all resources to maximise its strategies and gains.

This is an industry. Nothing more, nothing less. It really is no surprise that EA managed to beat one of the most corrupt banks with the most desdain for its customers with its customer support ratings. It is a non factor for how such enterprises function. It is not about the customer, not about the developer, it is not about the resources. It is about maximising gain (which includes gaining control over trends in how the industry itself develops).

That is the idea behind business. I'm talking about art. These two different mindsets tend to contradict themselves.

When it comes to things of need, and things of use, yes the business model of wondering what it can do for others is a good mindset to have. When it comes to creating something that is more or less art(video games are works of art in my opinion) you want to follow your vision first. It doesn't hurt to take in suggestions but letting your "fanbase" run how the game turns out is far too risky and more likely than not results in too many disappointed. You simply cannot please everyone.

arcology · March 18, 2013

The short version is simple. Those parts of our industry which are managed as an investment format for venture and investor capital are structurally contaminated by a mindset which is counterproductive to the continuity of the industry. Their only recourse for continuity is achieving full and complete control over the industry as a whole and over all required resources as a whole. The customer has no meaning, and to quote a senior EA executive from an interesting post briefing discussion last year "the customer can go f*ck himself, stupid f*cks will buy anything anyway cause we decide for 'em". I sometimes wish I had recorded that discussion, but at the end of the day it is probably best that I didn't. Call me crazy, but I know too many good men and women who would find themselves without even the prospects of a career if EA blew up in the predictable ways following such a scandal.

I apologize for cutting into your posts, as they are very informative, in their entirety! I just wanted to ask, maybe at this point, rhetorically, as it is obvious they will never "bend to the will" of the consumer, what are the consumers' options?

There have been literally over thousands of voices trying to make a change with this, and absolutely nothing - other than, basically, more PR.

When does a corporation become so big that it really thinks it does not need its consumers? I did read the psycopathy, again, very informative and based on the actions seen with this game, it makes sense.

There is a bigger reason behind the scenes, right? Data mining, collecting info to be sold to advertisers, etc.,? Is that why us consumers feel we don't have a voice, with this?

P.S. I know there are more important issues going on in this world, today, that I do pay attention to - this is just a game, after all, but, moments of destressing are important, also!!

nashville nelson · March 18, 2013

Hope I don't expose myself as too ignorant by asking this but doesn't the fact that a lot of the game is run through the cloud make it easier for PCs to run? I remember when SC4 came out I could barely run it on my brand new Vaio. SC4 also had problems running on the new laptop I bought in 2009. It was so big my computer would often overheat when running it. I'm not saying I am pro-DRM/always online but if it's reducing the load on our computers at least we have that.

/looking on the bright side

And to what Evil_One has said i would like to add that SC4 handles the graphic in ways no new computer can handle it. It has something to do with the way old graphic cards where programmed. They did talk about it in the first AMAA on reddit.

macvirt · March 18, 2013

I personally don't see a problem with a developer coming up with an idea they like and running with it. That is how all great games come into existence in the first place. They don't exactly make a game thinking "oh, this is what the fanbase wants!" because there generally is no fanbase. No, in the early days people just came up with stuff. The problem I see is though is you are taking an existing idea and trying to redesign it instead of expanding on what makes this game unique compared to the ones made in the past. Its a fine line to cross. I don't think EA hires developers to design games they want to make rather what will make them the most money.

Wrong. Great visions on ventures always start with a general approach of "guys this is an awesome idea, what do we know of what people out there might find awesome about it and how do we match that". The greatest games have always began as projects on the questions of "what do people want and what do people need". It is after that where other parts of the challenge start, for example how to package that, how to sell that, how to seperate groups from the generic volume markets so that they become a customer and a fanbase.

Or rather, that is how it started out in our industry. Today it is different. For example, it is no longer "done" to approach matters to seperate groups from generic volumes, it is now required to use existing seperate groups in order to reach and utilise generic volumes. The difference may seem subtle at first, but is extremely significant and has deep consequences for customers and customer groups.

EA is a prime example, because in many ways they create the trends that are shaping this industry. And yes, EA specifically collects resources to match their vision, their targets, their money. Developers, just like the computers they use, just like the customers expected to buy quietly and all resources. EA tunes all resources to maximise its strategies and gains.

This is an industry. Nothing more, nothing less. It really is no surprise that EA managed to beat one of the most corrupt banks with the most desdain for its customers with its customer support ratings. It is a non factor for how such enterprises function. It is not about the customer, not about the developer, it is not about the resources. It is about maximising gain (which includes gaining control over trends in how the industry itself develops).

That is the idea behind business. I'm talking about art. These two different mindsets tend to contradict themselves.

When it comes to things of need, and things of use, yes the business model of wondering what it can do for others is a good mindset to have. When it comes to creating something that is more or less art(video games are works of art in my opinion) you want to follow your vision first. It doesn't hurt to take in suggestions but letting your "fanbase" run how the game turns out is far too risky and more likely than not results in too many disappointed. You simply cannot please everyone.

But they do not have to clash. Take the now leaving CEO of EA. Smart guy, wrong mindset, completely caught in confusing his perspectives with those of customers. Sure, played games (also competing titles), and sure he had his own contacts for the perspective of the art(s) (so to speak), but because he forgot that selling is about selling what the customer wants and not about selling what you want or about what you need the customer to want, things bumped against a self-made wall.

This is something which gets me every time we're at a conference in Europe, in Asia or back home. The publishers who run the business as an investment or venture capital project all consistantly forget that if they are to succeed they cannot afford to a) get caught in short cycle management and b) make it about them and not about the customer.

As I said before, such mindsets regardless of industry or sector of society result in treating everything as a resource. Including those who do the actual work, and those who buy the work. That's never a good idea if you want to grow to rule any industry.

macvirt · March 18, 2013

The short version is simple. Those parts of our industry which are managed as an investment format for venture and investor capital are structurally contaminated by a mindset which is counterproductive to the continuity of the industry. Their only recourse for continuity is achieving full and complete control over the industry as a whole and over all required resources as a whole. The customer has no meaning, and to quote a senior EA executive from an interesting post briefing discussion last year "the customer can go f*ck himself, stupid f*cks will buy anything anyway cause we decide for 'em". I sometimes wish I had recorded that discussion, but at the end of the day it is probably best that I didn't. Call me crazy, but I know too many good men and women who would find themselves without even the prospects of a career if EA blew up in the predictable ways following such a scandal.

I apologize for cutting into your posts, as they are very informative, in their entirety! I just wanted to ask, maybe at this point, rhetorically, as it is obvious they will never "bend to the will" of the consumer, what are the consumers' options?

There have been literally over thousands of voices trying to make a change with this, and absolutely nothing - other than, basically, more PR.

When does a corporation become so big that it really thinks it does not need its consumers? I did read the psycopathy, again, very informative and based on the actions seen with this game, it makes sense.

There is a bigger reason behind the scenes, right? Data mining, collecting info to be sold to advertisers, etc.,? Is that why us consumers feel we don't have a voice, with this?

P.S. I know there are more important issues going on in this world, today, that I do pay attention to - this is just a game, after all, but, moments of destressing are important, also!!

I'm in agreement with RPS on that.

1. Never preorder anything.

2. Never believe any marketing, any messaging from anyone trying to sell anything to you.

3. Inform yourself. If a manufacturer or publisher does not allow you to try out a product or service to your satisfaction do not buy from them.

4. Do not buy anything that tests your personal expectations.

Our society is built on a necessity for consumers to buy and buy and buy regardless of whether it suits them, caters to their needs or wishes and above all regardless of whether the product or service actually does what it promises. This is a broken model. We have seen it in our housing industry, our construction industry, our finance industry, even in our politics. All forms of human interaction has natural limits to the abilty of a society to treat trust as a currency without recognising that it is a foundation requirement.

The only power consumers have is not to buy. Pure and simple. This does not destroy business. It does not destroy economies. Smart business sees such trends, caters to them, and seizes the opportunities presented. Unfortunately all our industry strives towards becoming what people call "too big to fail". We refuse to adapt, we invest solely to control and to maintain status quo. This is the reason even the smartest politicians and John & Jane Doe citizen cannot get our economies to function properly because functioning properly means adapting to changing circumstances. And let's be honest, this is where members of ASEAN and the EU have far better potential than our US because in our society being the biggest equals having the power to resist adaptation, the power to negate the necessity of adapting, the power to remove the changes in conditions and circumstances through narrative control.

What we're seeing today is that our systems based on consumerism are starting, and I do mean only just now starting, to struggle because instinctively a group dynamic always reaches for influence over its own circumstances. The past thirty years our politics and our economics have been able to use that through the strict instrumentation of narrative control (shaping perception) and the management of fear (to keep all noses in the same system pointing the same way). Let's be honest, how many people still feel they have influence on a politics that has meaning. How many people still feel to have influence or even rights in our economic systems of business. How many people are closing the wallet because of fear, and how many instinctively grow cautious because it really is the only recourse left.

Ok, bit of an off topic moment there, though it is not really that off topic. It's a mindset issue, one that also plays out in our industry. I'm going to be brutally honest here, happy to have a degree of anonimity from my peers in places like these. Consumers are slaves. That is how they are discussed, talked about, referred to, used as. Pure and simple. The only thing slaves can do in our current systems is to not buy, and keep an eye out for those businesses who do not treat them like resources, who do not use Big Lie methodologies and who do not confuse their own visions and expectations with those of customers.

EA wanted dominance. It still wants that. But because of the mindset that grew EA, and I have posted this over the past months probably too repeatedly, the executive levels and the connected investment elements all fell prey to a desdain of that which really enables them. They forced themselves in to a format of running short cycles of investments and ventures constantly eating up pieces of their own potential and revenues. They forced themselves in to a position counterproductive to their ultimate goals. And that is quite an accomplishment, considering those goals really are not in the interest of any consumer because those goals were presented to secure control over consumers. It is twisted, I know, and really only the bonus culture syndrome, management psychopathy syndrome (nothing personal, really do some research on this and you will be amazed) and the focus on confusing perspectives and enablement variables that have gotten EA in to the current situation. It's basically shooting yourself in the foot, knowingly, but doing it anyway because you believe that if you use the Big Lie methods long ago you will own the ranch anyway.

Let's be honest, how many more examples of these things do we have to see. Mortgage brokers, construction venture firms, real estate markets, banks, finance, I do think it is fair to say that since the '80's we have seen too much of these issues. No wonder people, that strange human animal, seeks other ways of securing its interests.

Kabloosh · March 18, 2013